Jewish couple was rejected as foster parents because of their religion. The future Project 2025

Oregon adoption agencies are also doing it.

Religious Discrimination Hurts Kids Waiting to Be Adopted
Some states are denying people of faith from adopting and fostering children because of their beliefs about gender and sexuality.

Beyond the effect on children, these policies also violate the First Amendment rights of would-be adoptive parents. They categorically exclude entire religious communities from the adoption and foster-care process based on their religious beliefs on gender and sexuality, violating constitutional protections for religious freedom and expression. These policies also violate the right to free speech by compelling parents to affirm the state’s ideology in word and deed.

adflegal.org...

a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

Google is your friend.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

Google is your friend.

So...nothing.


Always the same conclusion.


You can't support nor defend your regurgitated talking points.

Thanks again for playing.

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

Google is your friend.

So...nothing.


Always the same conclusion.


You can't support nor defend your regurgitated talking points.

Thanks again for playing.

Advising you to educate yourself is not nothing.

a reply to: quintessentone

Except, it is.

I do not need to be reminded to drink water, do you?

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: quintessentone

Except, it is.

I do not need to be reminded to drink water, do you?

In my case, I need to take a little Celtic mineral-rich salt before I drink water for optimum effect, so that is what I need to remember to do. Get it?

a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

Can you tell me when the "left" coalesced into a force?

You asked me an off topic and irrelvant question, requiring me to identify the exact moment when the "left" coalesced against states controlling women's bodies, because women were dying in droves.

I'm telling you, it was before and during the ROE ordeal, around 1972. If that's not a good enough an answer for you, I gave you a history link. If that's not a good enough for you, Google is your friend.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You don't know, that's fine. Neither do I.

But I do know that abortion being a states rights issue was a policy proposition that the left held.

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: Sookiechacha

You don't know, that's fine. Neither do I.

But I do know that abortion being a states rights issue was a policy proposition that the left held.

Nobody has the right to give 'the people' or anybody the right to tell another person what they can or can't do with their bodies.

Hey look! Another thread derailed with talk about abortion....

originally posted by: matafuchs
Hey look! Another thread derailed with talk about abortion....

Which is directly related to Project 2025 as this thread also merges into the underlying context, which speaks to the continued discrimination and extremist Christian nationalist agenda.

a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

But do know that abortion being a states rights issue was a policy proposition that the left held.

You don't know that at a!I. Citation required.

The "Left" was never in favor of women dying in back-alley abortions, neither was the Christian right, at that time. Roe V Wade was celebrated as a bipartisan effort.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: Sookiechacha

You don't know, that's fine. Neither do I.

But I do know that abortion being a states rights issue was a policy proposition that the left held.

Nobody has the right to give 'the people' or anybody the right to tell another person what they can or can't do with their bodies.

Unless somebody commits murder. 😊

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: Sookiechacha

You don't know, that's fine. Neither do I.

But I do know that abortion being a states rights issue was a policy proposition that the left held.

Nobody has the right to give 'the people' or anybody the right to tell another person what they can or can't do with their bodies.

Unless somebody commits murder. 😊

Yes, the murder of a living person and that is where 'the people' decide via their votes.

originally posted by: Mahogani

It is nearly all the country will be talking about through November, and past it. It's a yuge deal for women who are losing their hard earned rights.

We'll see who they blame.

Liberals have failed at everything, so they only have two platforms to run on... Abortions and guns...

What right are women losing BTW, maybe start there.

You know what? Who cares. Really. I could care less anymore. I am so sick of the hatred of ANYTHING that is Christian or White.

This was a state funded agency. They could have gone to another. Just like you can go to another baker. It is the same Progressive garbage.

How many of you have actually read Project 2025? Why do I have to say he/they/zir and if not I lose my job but I cannot hold Christian values like a strong family or even a belief in god? Have morals and say Lizzo is gross.

I mean, did you know in Project 2025 they state Adoption agencies should receive more federal funding to help lower abortion rates? It is on page 6.

So, tell me how Project 2025 is not allowing folks to adopt when the want to fund more adoptions? They want pro-family policies. 70% of Black Children born today have no father. I would think Project 2025 could help with that .

They want everyone to be equal and have a chance.

a reply to: matafuchs

And another Christian slant.

God forbid a group wants good moral values and not drag shows with 8 year olds.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: Sookiechacha

You don't know, that's fine. Neither do I.

But I do know that abortion being a states rights issue was a policy proposition that the left held.

Nobody has the right to give 'the people' or anybody the right to tell another person what they can or can't do with their bodies.

Before, it was just fine for the federal government to tell you what you could do regarding that topic, why was that OK, but to have the states vote on it and enact laws the people in that state want? I'm missing the argument.

Imagine if I was in charge of another person's life and I felt that they were an inconvenience.

I'd get support from the evil left, yes?